Skip to main content
Press Release

Lancaster Resident Charged With Unemployment Compensation Benefits Fraud

For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Pennsylvania

HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a criminal charge was filed today in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg against Angel Luis Carrasco-Rivera for fraudulently obtaining unemployment benefits. 

According to U.S. Attorney Peter Smith, Carrasco-Rivera, age 54, of Lancaster, was charged in a Criminal Information with mail fraud.  The charge stems from Carrasco-Rivera filing claims for unemployment compensation benefits from 2008 through late 2012 with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry in Harrisburg. Carrasco-Rivera allegedly knew he was not entitled to those benefits because he was employed full time when he applied for and received them.  Carrasco-Rivera allegedly obtained more than $102,000 in benefits to which he was not entitled during that four-year period.

The government also filed a plea agreement that calls for Carrasco-Rivera to plead guilty and also pay back the more than $102,000 he illegally obtained.  The plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court.

This matter was investigated by the United States Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Office of Labor Racketeering and Fraud Investigations, with assistance from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Internal Audits Division.  Prosecution is assigned to Assistant U.S. Attorney James T. Clancy.

Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The maximum penalty under federal law is 20 years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine.  Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

 

# # #

Updated February 4, 2016